They didn't catch the concept of metaphilosophy. They only catch METAPhilosophy as "philosophy about philosophy"❓So ambiguous METAPhilosophy Understanding MetaPhilosophy thoroughly in 1, 2 & 3 Philosophy ... Love of wisdom META ... Beyond 🔰 MetaPhilosophy is Beyond the Love of Wisdom. What is Beyond the Love of Wisdom❓ 🧩 Wisdom is Truth Itself & Truth Represents the Right Boundaries 🎯 Loving Wisdom Means Loving the Right Boundaries Right Boundaries Provide Clarity So They Are Easily Understood ⭕️ Philosophy Loves Clarity, Not Accumulating Confusion (Polemic) ❇️ Going Beyond Clarity Means Foundational ❇️ Foundational Means Absolute, So MetaPhilosophy Goes Beyond Clarity Which Also Means At the Foundational Point Which Also Means Being MetaPhilosophical Is Being at the Foundation - Absolute, So MetaPhilosophy Explores the Dimension of Absoluteness UNDERSTANDING METAPHILOSOPHY EASILY To make it easier to understand MetaPhilosophy❓ Exploring Absoluteness MetaPhilosophy seeks to understand the fundamental wisdom of what is considered most fundamental. Beyond Rationality Despite rationality being considered the foundation of philosophical reasoning, even rationality is not easily understood if it is not realistic. What is considered rational is sometimes difficult to understand realistically, except as mere overlapping logical conclusions. Subjective-Objective MetaPhilosophy must be able to see the objective side of the subjective, and see the subjective side of the objective. So as not to mistakenly understand the concrete in an abstract way and vice versa, which would take it out of context. Context & Perspective MetaPhilosophy must be able to see context differently from perspective and not equate "different contexts" as "different perspectives," though they are different. ⭕️ THIS IS THE MAIN MISTAKE IN PHILOSOPHY THAT BECOMES THE ROOT OF MANY POLEMICS Philosophical Ambiguity MetaPhilosophy must be wary of ambiguity in philosophy, in order to find universal truth Beyond Cause and Effect MetaPhilosophy must reason beyond cause and effect (beyond relative logical consequences) WORLD VIEW ON METAPHILOSOPHY The Problem of METAPhilosophy❓ ⭕️ They didn't grasp the concept of MetaPhilosophy. They only see METAPhilosophy as 'philosophy about philosophy'❓So ambiguous. So, unlike what is generally known in the world that MetaPhilosophy is philosophy about philosophy❓Which is still ambiguous because they themselves are confused in formulating the concept of MetaPhilosophy and then their confusion considers MetaPhilosophy no different from or part of philosophy ❌ But actually ... 📌 SO, MetaPhilosophy fundamentally is 1⃣ ❇️ Tracing Universal Truth and Applying Knowledge Contextually Practically ... 2⃣ ❇️ Reasoning Equally (Subjective-Objective) Based on Premises Beyond Cause and Effect (Absolute Logical Consequences) Experimentation This means that if previous philosophy only contemplated with thoughts far from experimentation, MetaPhilosophy must base its knowledge on experimental evidence or conduct experiments itself. The difference between science and MetaPhilosophy is that if science seeks to find the truth of probability from the results of its experiments, MetaPhilosophy must be able to see the universal truth from its experimental results. 3⃣ ❇️ Fundamentally, MetaPhilosophy deals with universal absolute truth. Whatever is touched, studied, communicated, or approached by MetaPhilosophy, always seeks the underlying universal absolute truth. 📌 So it is time for science to trust philosophy through MetaPhilosophy, where their synergy will occur - sooner or later. 🔰 Science is the hand of MetaPhilosophy, and vice versa. 🔰 I THINK THIS IS ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN WHAT METAPHILOSOPHY IS
@METAFilsafat2 ай бұрын
The Problem of METAPhilosophy❓ They didn't catch the concept of METAPhilosophy. They only catch METAPhilosophy as "philosophy about philosophy"❓So ambiguous seremonia.medium.com/metaphilosophy-bbb70ac04ddd
@GottfriedLeibnizYT4 ай бұрын
Quine did a better job with his notion of web of belief and confirmation holism undermining any difference between science and philosophy in the first place.
@flemdogdaddy5 ай бұрын
A marker of meta-philosophy is the use of people's names to denote entire philosophical approaches. I see you are committed to a Kantian conception of Platonic forms notwithstanding the Socratic qua Hegelian dialectic which has been completely over-thrown by Darwinian if not Freudian sensibilities. Its as though Marxists are unaware how Orwellian they have become despite the best attempts by Rawlsian justice-seekers. Not to mention Chomsky and BOOM! we must wait to see where Aikonic and Talessian assertions will map onto a priori Cartesian coordinates.
@pinverarity5 ай бұрын
I’m curious about who/what counts as metaphilosophy (recognizing that consideration of the question is itself presumably metaphilosophical). Quine’s Two Dogmas, I assume, and LW’s Philosophical Investigations? How about Rorty’s Phil. & the Mirror of Nature? Habermas’ Knowledge & Human Interests? Foucault’s Order of Things? Horkheimer’s ‘Traditional & Critical Theory’? Horkheimer/Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment? Lyotard’s Postmodern Condition? Mannheim’s Ideology & Utopia?
@haileykrantz47635 ай бұрын
Hmm. Didn’t even know this existed. Pretty neat, guys!
@krumbergify5 ай бұрын
Love you guys :)
@acerrubrum57495 ай бұрын
Hit the Like button 🎉 Write a comment ✍️ Push the channel up the algorithm ⚡️
@acerrubrum57495 ай бұрын
❤
@pinecone4215 ай бұрын
I'm happy to see the podcast is back up! - Ian
@jpc53576 ай бұрын
👈👈
@ivanyaholnitsky30756 ай бұрын
Love the enthusiasm.
@eeclarkutube6 ай бұрын
I still don’t understand how Billy Joel figures into all of this.
@pinverarity6 ай бұрын
I think that counts as one of W.B. Gallies “essentially contested concepts,” along with the origin of virtue, possible world semantics, and Dead Kennedy’s hardcore period.
@lisamadura27696 ай бұрын
This is great! The example that kept coming to mind was colorblindness as a solution to racial discrimination. It seems like a lot of ink would have been saved if some folks in that debate had this concept in hand. Anyway, glad to have you guys back!
@3rd_POV6 ай бұрын
Welcome back!!
@jameslovell57216 ай бұрын
This is brilliant. The curative fallacy is everywhere.
@ByrdNick6 ай бұрын
So the curative fallacy is the mistake of thinking the solution to an existing problem is whatever would have prevented the problem from occurring. It’s a fallacy because this rule of thumb often doesn’t work (e.g., closing the barn door would have prevented the horse from escaping the barn but now that the horse has escaped through the open door, closing the open barn door won’t get the horse back into the barn - in fact, closing the door will make it impossible to get the horse back into the barn). Is this written somewhere we can cite? (Why We Argue?) Or is this something that’s still in progress?
@eeclarkutube6 ай бұрын
Philosophy Improv
@livingsoilharvest6 ай бұрын
Environmentalists who oppose carbon capture/sequestration policies on principle are an interesting case here. In this case the preventative (don't burn fossil fuels) is a big part of the curative, but needn't be all of it.
@mprater866 ай бұрын
Definitely a good fallacy to keep in mind, and I like how y'all applied it to the current political toxicity.
@AustinCaroe6 ай бұрын
Also Southpark has a brilliant precursor to the curative fallacy 😂: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZXFm6pobLaDgLMsi=sXq1luGPUcYT_10U
@AustinCaroe6 ай бұрын
Quick note on turning the other cheek from Matthew 5:38. Depending on how you read the text, it is not about love, but about defiance. Inside Christian circles, it is often taught that, in context, a slap on the right cheek would have been a backhanded slap from the right hand of a higher ranking person against a lower ranking person. By turning the other cheek, you are inviting an open forehand slap from the right hand to the left cheek, placing the slapper in a dilemma: either he is shamed for his inability to force the lower ranking person into submission, or if he slaps the left cheek he is treating the slapped person as an equal. Most English translations say: “…do not resist evil. *But* if anyone slaps you on the right cheek…” There is likely some scholarly disagreement about this, but it is likely not as simple as Dr. Talisse lays out. I really like the idea of the curative fallacy. Have you published a paper on it, or do you plan to do so?
@user-jf3hh4xr4n6 ай бұрын
Ok. I just discovered this. My first question. Does anyone ever occasionally come by and air out your offices? Second. So you finally get to perhaps what you were aiming at, the difficulties that our democracy is facing today. Other than chuckling about how right we are and how wrong everyone else is, well where does it go from here? Luckily, you have now ran out of time!
@acerrubrum57496 ай бұрын
👍
@jameslovell57216 ай бұрын
You’re back!!
@peterchoate3306 ай бұрын
So great you are back
@podcastuldefilosofie6 ай бұрын
nice!!!!
@thomasarendt74696 ай бұрын
This comment section is amusing
@yiome93986 ай бұрын
Welcome back!
@AustinCaroe6 ай бұрын
Great to have you all back!
@AaronSherman6 ай бұрын
Love seeing you back! It would be amazing if you did a Q&A segment from time to time. Maybe even with questions from your students.
@livingsoilharvest6 ай бұрын
This is wonderful. Two huge interpretive keys for unlocking Rawls. At the end you seem (to me) to suggest that Rawls was of the opinion that if pure liberalism doesn't work, the anarchist wins. But can't we rank liberal societies by how well they *balance* equal-liberty-for-all with stability?
@JeffRebornNow10 ай бұрын
Isn't one of W.'s points that we haven't been to get at "the truth" of language and how it relates (in what ways it corresponds and doesn't correspond) to the external world through dialectics? So one can't expect to find a clearly stated first premise to the so-called "private language" argument.
@jamesdaltrey4987 Жыл бұрын
You have failed to understand what virtue meant to the Stoics. You cannot use Catholic or Aristotelian virtue and switch it for Stoic virtue and try and make sense of Stoicism. No more than you can switch out a river bank and a savings bank, or an elephants trunk for a tree trunk.. It is a nonsensical thing to do..
@z6li22 Жыл бұрын
Where are the videos boys?
@z6li22 Жыл бұрын
Nice shirt
@nononouh Жыл бұрын
1244
@MrLiveWest Жыл бұрын
A Cynic is less likely to make the wrong choice via process of elimination
@aydc67402 жыл бұрын
i love you guys
@aydc67402 жыл бұрын
come back!!!
@derekruairc3342 жыл бұрын
Awful video of trolling an autistic. Oh, you didn't know........Like watching empty vessels on an altar.
@barrett14392 жыл бұрын
Kripke does a good job of linking all the content about rule following to the private language argument.
@ScootyThunder2 жыл бұрын
When WIttgenstien said he was trying to show you the flybottle of your philosophy, it's your video he was talking about. The number of times you ram your head into the glass only to bounce off and do it again is astounding. I encourage you to take your video and analyse the strengths of your arguments against the thing you are arguing against. As of 5:48, the only thing you are arguing against is your own strawman built on the lack of comprehension. If you do develop better arguments, I won't have seen them, 5:48 was enough time to send me to the hell holl that is "the youtube comment section."
@asegal46772 жыл бұрын
Agreed. The "later Wittgenstein" by the way never published anything which explains some of the writing style as it is being criticized here. Bottom line is that the later Wittgenstein was profound even if all his assertions, suggestions, etc were not entirely clear.
@acerrubrum57492 жыл бұрын
👍
@Coltonwinters0002 жыл бұрын
I just binged your whole channel, please make more!!
@1330m2 жыл бұрын
Incarnation of absolute geist in korea
@1330m2 жыл бұрын
W had become a pragmatist after dicussing with F . Ramsey .
@dx7tnt2 жыл бұрын
"The trouble with misunderstanding Wittgenstein" As Wittgenstein says "I would not want to save you the trouble of thinking" and it seems in your case (particularly the guy on the left of the picture) he *has* saved you the trouble. And this rhetoric of cultishness is simply awful. Same goes for opening with an ad hominem. This is the worst philosophy video on KZbin.
@vulteiuscatellus41052 жыл бұрын
Wittgenstein is overrated and your assertion that he’s “misunderstood” (asserted without argument) is itself cultic.
@asegal46772 жыл бұрын
@@vulteiuscatellus4105 As is your assertion that he is overrated. That was too easy.
@vulteiuscatellus41052 жыл бұрын
@@asegal4677 You really couldn’t do better than “same to you?” Pathetic.
@takeonukraine13312 жыл бұрын
Such a great format. Thank you
@mydemon2 жыл бұрын
Flower shirt Professor speaks a little too fast sometimes and swallows syllables, making it hard to understand. Maybe nervousness.